This image could not be published in an American newspaper, magazine, or any other media broadcast, because it depicts American casualties in Iraq. The Bush Administration has decided that this could negatively affect public opinion of the Iraq War and decided to censor all such images. If you are an American citizen, please save this image onto your hard drive and show it to your friends. Freedom of the press is protected by your constitution and you should not give it up so easily.

Aristotle spoke of using "logos" as a means of winning an argument. It is one of the forms of rhetoric, which can be defined as " faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion." Rhetoric is designed as a method of convincing others to bend to your will and to influence public opinion. Luckily, this knowledge has not been lost in our times, thanks to the incredible memory of our politicians. They know that when all else fails, you can run a campaign ad that dumbs down the issues, you can slander your opponent, and you can probably win the votes you need to stay in office for four more years.

South of the 49th parallel, our American friends are getting ready for the Primaries, where the Democratic Party will vote for a candidate to run against Bush in the fall of 2004. It is at times like this that I wish I was an American, just so I could vote against George W. Bush, the cancerous force that is eating away at America's moral character and ruining any hopes for world peace. Sadly, I am Canadian so I must devote my energies to voting against Paul Martin, the Liberal leader with a fondness for corporate rule and a supporter of the ill-fated American Missile Defence Shield.

When I mentioned rhetoric, I failed to offer a concrete example. Here is an ad released by the "Club for Growth", an American non-profit organization that was "...founded in 1999 to elect pro-economic growth fiscal conservatives. That organization forwards campaign contributions from its members to the most free-market oriented candidates in targeted congressional races." It is laden with excellent rhetoric and will be sure to mislead thousands of American voters.

FOR THREE DECADES, DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES HAVE SUPPORTED HUGE TAX INCREASES.

THIS YEAR, THEY'RE BACK.

HOWARD DEAN SAYS HE'LL RAISE TAXES ON THE AVERAGE FAMILY BY MORE THAN NINETEEN HUNDRED DOLLARS A YEAR.

DEAN SAYS HE'LL RAISE INCOME TAXES, MARRIAGE TAXES, CAPITAL GAINS TAXES, DIVIDEND TAXES, EVEN BRING BACK THE DEATH TAX.

THESE DEMOCRATS FOUND OUT THAT AMERICANS CAN'T AFFORD HIGHER TAXES.

WILL HOWARD DEAN EVER LEARN?

What they are saying is that Democrats want to raise taxes, and since middle-income Americans are going to pay more taxes with a Democrat in the White House, we should obviously vote in a leader who instituted billions of dollars of tax cuts for the rich. Independant studies of Bush's economic policy have shown an alarming disregard for the bottom 80 percent of the American population. The majority of his tax cuts were aimed at the wealthiest individuals in America, specifically those with incomes $500,000 and above. Obviously, the only way to pass off such a tax cut is by convincing everyone that they'll all make a better living that way, and rhetoric makes this possible!

The 30-second "Club for Growth" television ad also associates Howard Dean with several Democratic candidates who lost previous elections. These other candidates failed to win for mixed reasons but it is foolhardy to try and compare the 2004 election to those in the past. By labelling the Democratic party as a lost cause, some swing voters might be convinced to back the winning candidate, and thereby lead their nation into four more years of questionable leadership. Also, in these other elections, the incumbent hadn't put his country into the largest deficit in history (a record $380 billion USD). Bush has been the architect of some of the most questionable acts in American history, including removing two sovereign powers without declaring war, putting his country to the brink of bankruptcy, and failing to capture Osama Bin Laden by wasting his time pursuing pre-emptive strikes and intimidation of "Rogue states".

The "Club for Growth" is not part of the American Republican Party but since the Republicans serve its special interests, the Club is glad to knock down any opponents to GOP rule. Hopefully, the American public will realize the harm that George Bush and his cut-taxes-at-all-costs Republican minions have caused to their great nation. When you cut taxes, you must cut spending accordingly, and by cutting spending, the working class will suffer the most. How many millionaires take the bus? When do you see Bill Gates bleeding in the lobby of an overworked, underfunded charity hospital? Unless we tax the wealthy at a sufficient rate, the rest of us will feel the sting of going without.

My father is fond of saying that if income taxes existed when Karl Marx was writing his manifesto, there would never have been a communist revolution anywhere. Obviously, you must temper your actions with logic and I am not saying that we should blindly vote against whoever supports the status quo, but I think that in the 2004 election, the decision should be simple--just don't vote for Bush! He is a media whore, a man who has never had to go without, an heir to a multi-million fortune, and a former National Guardsman who went AWOL. What he isn't is a leader. Visit Moveon.org for more ammunition.

I was reading about John Taylor Gatto, the 1991 New York City school teacher of the year, and I was most amused about how he responded to the award--he quit his teaching career and began a life for himself on a farm with his wife. Although he quit teaching, he didn't stop trying to help us learn. He is the author of several books on the perils that forced schooling are inflicting on generations of students all around the world. These days, he is an advocate of home schooling and a supporter of the Libertarian party.

From what I've seen, the core of his argument is that going to school crushes your individuality, teaches you to use external measures of self-worth, and neglects to properly prepare you for a healthy, fulfilling life. Instead, it collates and sorts photocopied graduates to be filed in the Human Resources department of our corporations.

Although I have had some positive learning experiences in my time, I would agree for the most part. I have always enjoyed reading on my own and learning from my parents (who are both teachers, giving me an unfair chance!). I only questioned the idea of going to school when I was five years old and vowed that I would hide underneath my bed when the bus arrived to cart me off. That thinking was long dead, until now.

I know that if I want to write for a living, I'll have to go back to Concordia University eventually. (McGill missed out on a great prospect when they scoffed at my mountain-range chart of high and low marks...they vary from 19 in Vectors and Linear Algebra to 100 in History of Western Civilization) The diploma I receive in Journalism won't teach me to write--it will teach me to pull my punches at the behest of an editor, to follow the "rules", and to make deadlines and get real world experience in the field. So far, the only real journalism I've ever done is for Spec Newspaper, and only an op-ed piece on the 2001 FTAA summit in Quebec City. Unless you count this blog, of course.

I wish I knew a lawyer who's well versed in international law because I have a whopper of a question. I'm wondering if the United States is voiding its lease in Guantanamo Bay by holding "enemy combatants" in a prison there.

According to what I've read about the history of how the U.S. acquired the right to use this slice of Cuba for its own purposes, it appears that the original lease stipulated:

"(a) The area must be used only for a coaling and naval station."

Guantanamo Bay has been occupied by the U.S. since 1898. Since they are clearly using it for purposes beyond those sanctioned in the original agreement, it should technically become null and void, or at least it seems so. If there are any lawyers who I've caught reading this, please send me a message in the msg board to the right & help me to understand the legal logistics of this thing!

I just read an article in Townhall.com by Linda Chavez. She is the President of the Center for Equal Opportunity, a "think tank" that tries to promote the assimilation of immigrants and cultural monoversity (the opposite of diversity?). They also oppose affirmative action programs, certain types of education ("racialist 'Afrocentric' curriculum of dubious merit", as they say on their mission statement), and they absolutely reject bilingualism. It is a good thing that we don't have a branch of CEO up here in Canada! The Quebec government would be in an uproar. Assimilation? English only? It wouldn't fly up here.

After reading her Dean article, I decided to write her a letter and call her on her background information. She says that Howard Dean is proving to say things recklessly and then she tries to use this as a cattle prod, using his misquotes to jab at his nomination chances. Where I took offense was when she says "But to say that Americans are no safer with Saddam behind bars is just plain strange." Then, I began to lose track of my focus and I descended into a rant about her organization. I hope to receive a reply. If she responds, I'll see if I can post it up here, to allow her a chance to defend her potentially-heinous organization.

Here is the letter, unabridged.

Hello,

I was reading your article about Howard Dean's "wacky" and "irresponsible" statements and how they may hurt his chances during the 2004 election. This is a matter of speculation, however since George W. Bush is the architect of two foreign invasions & the world record holder for both the "Largest Deficit by an American President in History" and the "Most protesters opposing American President in History", there is a good chance that the Democratic candidate will win by a slim majority. Whether Dean will be the nominee is a matter to be seen.

The capture of Saddam Hussein is a triumph for human rights and justice since he and his brutal regime must be judged by an internationally-sanctioned war crimes tribunal. His capture doesn't necessarily mean that America will be safer. Ba'ath Iraqi Fedayeen and other Saddam loyalists are not the only players in the Iraqi insurgency (resistance). Shi'ite Fundamentalist militia and other agents are also involved in the guerilla warfare and other assymetrical tactics versus the American occupiers.

For this reason, Howard Dean was right to say that America wasn't safer with the capture of Saddam Hussein. The troops occupying Iraq will still face resistance for the months or years to come.

Also, Al Q'aida has not been subdued. The attack on Pakistani President Musharaf may have been one of their operations. Osama Bin Laden remains at large.

Let us not forget North Korea, which has taken a harder tack since America refused to make a non-agression pact and chastised North Korea for its nuclear programme. This is also a danger to the United States and a member of the Axis of Exil (With Iraq removed from the list, has the White House considered a replacement? Syria or Iran? The choices!).

Plus, Taiwan has a referendum coming up which has angered the Chinese Communists. They are committed to reuniting with Taiwan but there is a Taiwanese Separation movement that has gained control of the government. If Taiwan declares itself a sovereign nation and is accepted by enough states, China could go to war to seize what she sees as her possession. This uncertain time calls for calm and mutual respect. Foreign policy must be done with concern for other nations and their interests.

So, long story short, the capture of Saddam didn't necessarily make America safer. It did, however, give President Bush a feather in his cap which he will carry into the 2004 election.

I saw your website (CEO) and I wanted to say that my province (Québec) is bilingual. We love speaking both French and English. Most of my population speaks two languages and we have cultural and economic links with Europe as a reward. Instead of trying to melt down your population into a congruous mass, why not celebrate everyone's culture and background? Why assimilate and attempt cultural genocide?

With a small minority of Americans still hindered by the taint of racist beliefs, it is necessary to have programs like affirmative action. Since many of the policies of the past were against visible minorities (before the civil rights movement), many families are still trying to achieve the American dream and make a better life for themselves. What is your explanation for the CEO stance against affirmative action and for assimilation?

Please comment.

Thanks,

Philip Shearing

Linda's group also has the vaguely conservative acronym CEO (meaning Center for Equal Opportunity), possibly to represent the Bush administration. After all, former CEO Cheney now has the opportunity to give no bid contracts to his friends at Haliburton, former CEO Bush is reminding Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin that before Canada-U.S. relations are to equalize, we'll have to sign on to a missile-defense treaty, and poor Colin Powell just got the opportunity to survive cancer thanks to a lengthy operation. Out of all the Bush minions, Mr. Powell is one that I respect. (And Condoleeza Rice equals just a question mark. I am truly indifferent to her)

I just joined the NDP. I figure I might as well get started on fighting to defend Canadian democracy, since with Jack Layton leading the charge, we actually have a chance of winning the next election. Get out there and check out the NDP for yourself! You might not be as right wing as you thought!

Just to inject a little humour into the post below, take a look at Paul Martin's opinion on the Canadian Flag. Like I told you, he is a corrupt swindler! Even voting Conservative doesn't look that bad when you realize at least the Conservatives don't pretend to have a social conscience like Paul Martin's Liberals do.

Today, Paul Martin showed us that he is somebody that we can all agree to Vote Against. He is soon to be the official Prime Minister of Canada and he has begun to brandish his blade. Some veteran politicians have already felt its sharpness, including former Justice Minister Martin Cauchon and former Defense Minister John McCallum. Cauchon and his pipe dream of decriminalizing marijuana will probably be forgotten by Paul Martin's Conservative-in-Liberal's Clothing leadership, since Paul knows who butters his bread, and it is definately not the pot smokers of Canada. Until the public shows some sort of solidarity on the pot issue, we're going to be forced to run from the law and enrich organized crime for the years to come.

John McCallum was a likeable Minister of Defense, content to sit back and ridicule the American invasion of Iraq without any qualms. He has been punished by being delegated to the role of Veteran Affairs minister, a toothless agency who's aim is to thank veterans for their sacrifices, ie. pat them on the back and try to convince them that losing a leg in Korea really made a difference.

It is still to early to begin trying to say that Paul Martin is a horrible Prime Minister...staring at watch...ok, how about now? After all, he has given me a couple of reasons to fear the next couple of years already, and he has barely been sworn into office.

• Suspicious Move #1- He is trying to imitate our neighbours to the south! He is going to create a "Ministry of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness", mirroring the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, as if Canada is a major target of a terrorist attack. It is precisely by not buying into the "perpetual war" rhetoric that we have avoided being attacked by global terrorists. People know that Canada doesn't invade or occupy; we don't arrest people just because of the colour of their skin; we don't claim to own God (ie. God Bless America); by aping the American colossus, we risk being pulled down in its wake.


• Suspicious Move #2- Martin is cosying up to companies This is not altogether surprising, considering that Mr. Martin made his fortune in the private sector and obviously has some debts to repay, but do we have to lead our universities hand-in-hand to sure corporate control? The website of the Prime Minister's office promises to "(foster) the creation and growth of innovative Canadian companies by more effective commercialization of university research and better access to early stage financing." This will mean that any research that doesn't lead to corporate profits will be put on the back burner. By buying into the argument that the free market will provide for us all, we are going to close the door on developments that are beneficial to humanity but not to commerce.


• Suspicious Move #3- He is trying to seduce the Bush Administration Also promised in his announced changes to government, Paul Martin is going to create "...a new Cabinet Committee on Canada-U.S., chaired by the Prime Minister, to ensure an integrated, government-wide approach to Canada-U.S. relations and to be supported by a Canada-U.S. Secretariat in the Privy Council Office." Doesn't our embassy in Washington already perform this role? What does he mean by an "integrated, government-wide" approach? Are Canadian politicians going to learn to chant U S A in classrooms nation-wide? Is he referring to the frequent criticism of the Bush Administration by the braver members of Parliament over the past few years? This sort of talk is disheartening in a nation that prides itself on being "strong and free". When somebody covers your mouth, you're not experiencing freedom.

Love him or hate him, Jean Chretien has turned out to be a monumental leader. He slashed our social programs and education system in the early 90's and then metamorphized into a global pacifist and liberal moderate over the past year, vowing not to drag Canada into Iraq, attempting to legalize gay marriage on a federal level, and even courting the idea of decriminalizing small amounts of pot.

Sadly, Paul Martin has succeeded him, and if we are to remove him from the office of the Prime Minister, we'll all need to pull together. It will be tough to choose a new candidate but we've got at least a year before he holds a general election. Jack Layton, Godspeed to you & please don't give up fighting the Martin Menace.

Maybe we've been stricken by a case of bad karma. By giggling at the follies of Bush, with his "largest deficit in American history" world record & his obvious attempts at pandering to the lowest common denominator, we've been awarded a kick in the teeth in the form of Paul Martin, a spineless imp focused on winning back the favour of America. I think I'm going to do the unthinkable and actually vote NDP.

Now, enough of this unproductive ranting. I've got to get ready for a Hot Hot Heat concert @ Club Soda (7 PM, tickets are $15 CAD). Cheers!

Today was a bewildering day. I was unable to post anything to this blog for hours (the kind folks @ Blogspot must have been conducting some server maintenance!) and I only gained access to my soapbox just now.

This morning, I wanted to comment on the bombing that killed 9 Afghani civilians (all children). The strike was aimed at a "suspected Taliban terrorist" and was apparently supported by "very clear, actionable intelligence". I know that this Blog spends a little too much time focusing on the "usual suspects" (American soldiers & the Pentagon's war machine) but I couldn't let this slip past without mention. The "friendly fire" wasn't what shocked me the most--sadly, this sort of thing has been happening for years in all parts of the globe--what really caught my ire was the way the U.S. Military spokesman, Lt. Col. Bryan Hilferty, responded to the event.

"They're pretty understanding...They've been through years of war. They're not happy, but I think it meant a great deal to them that my commander, Gen. Austin, came out and personally expressed his condolences."

He also went on to say that although the U.S. forces were trying "to make sure (they) didn't hurt anybody besides (the suspect)...unfortunately, it's an imperfect art."

Calling firing on human beings from a distance an "art" makes a mockery of human life and of art itself!

Removing the Taliban government from power was necessary but this constant search for Al Q'aida isn't being carried out properly. They should be using the international legal & criminal organizations like Interpol to apprehend terrorists (George Soros is a proponent of this theory).

Then again, Afghanistan is a large mountainous country ruled locally by warlords. Much of the territory is beyond anyone's reach, not even local police, so that is why I suppose the military would be best suited for the job of tracking down the terrorists guilty of countless heinous acts. I'm not a tactical expert. I know that Canada is currently serving as the peacekeeping force in Kabul and apparently keeping order and trying to make a difference. I hope that we are welcome in their country.

Above all, if we just fire first and ask questions later, we are bound to strike some innocent people and create the template for future terrorism down the line. This applies to Afghanistan just as much as Iraq or any other country that we consider a terrorist state. People don't forget when they lose a father, or a child, and every life in the world is equal. If we want to truly combat terrorism, we must remove the reasons for supporting these groups--just like the cliché which remains from the Vietnam war, we must "win their hearts and minds" if we are to regain the security and peace we cherish. If we have the support of the majority of the people, they won't allow terrorists to blend into their population and they will be apprehended and dealt with accordingly.

Whenever I feel in need of a spiritual jello-shot, I just point my browser to the Tao Teh Ching, the great work by ancient Chinese scholar Lao-Tzu. He makes a lot of sense, even to a jaded modern reader such as myself.

"WHEN the world is in possession of the Tao,

The galloping horses are led to fertilise the fields
with their droppings.

When the world has become Taoless,

War horses breed themselves on the suburbs.

---

There is no calamity like not knowing what is enough.

There is no evil like covetousness.

Only he who knows what is enough will always have
enough."

The "Tao" that he refers to is something nearly beyond comprehension, because by definition, it is simply the origin of all life and existence. Taosim does not preclude monotheism since God could conceivably exist and nowhere in the Tao Teh Ching does it say that there is no God. It does say that by trying to assign rituals to spirituality, you are losing the essence of what is pure about your faith.

Failing Tao, man resorts to Virtue.

Failing Virtue, man resorts to humanity.

Failing humanity, man resorts to morality.

Failing morality, man resorts to ceremony.

Now, ceremony is the merest husk of faith and loyalty;

It is the beginning of all confusion and disorder.


As to foreknowledge, it is only the flower of Tao,

And the beginning of folly.


Therefore, the full-grown man sets his heart upon

the substance rather than the husk;

Upon the fruit rather than the flower.

Truly, he prefers what is within to what is without.

There is even a tiny shred of proof that the Canadian way is the way of the Tao!

WHAT is in the end to be shrunken,

Begins by being first stretched out.

What is in the end to be weakened,

Begins by being first made strong.

What is in the end to be thrown down,

Begins by being first set on high.

What is in the end to be despoiled,

Begins by being first richly endowed.


Herein is the subtle wisdom of life:

The soft and weak overcomes the hard and strong.


Just as the fish must not leave the deeps,

So the ruler must not display his weapons.

Since our military is cut off at the knees by lackluster spending and antiquated weapons, our country is weak militarily. Still, we have never been conquered (not even in 1812 when our American friends tried to slip a few thousand troops across the Great Lakes and up the Richelieu) and our place in the world is well respected. I feel much safer with a weak military than I would if we were occupying foreign countries against their will and flexing our might worldwide.

Tonight, I watched "Das Experiment", a German film based upon the true story of the Stanford Prison Experiment of 1971. It recounts the tale of a group of test subjects that are divided into two groups--half prisoners, the other half "prison guards". It was conducted in order to "...see what the psychological effects were of becoming a prisoner or prison guard".

Stir-crazy is an apt term for the way the prisoners reacted to the confinement and abuse doled out by their "guards". The lines between reality and fiction began to blur as the study went on and the catastrophic results that came after the sixth day should have been expected.

In real life, the Stanford experiment was halted on the sixth day because the lead researcher realized that "...(the) prisoners were withdrawing and behaving in pathological ways, and in which some of the guards were behaving sadistically".

I won't ruin the punch of the movie by doling out all the twists and scenes that wind up "Das Experiment" but it will suffice to say that the ending is grim and bloody. In the real experiment, there was a rebellion fomenting by the fifth day and some prisoners had lost all sense of reality. Some even begged a visiting chaplain to contact a lawyer to ask for "parole". They were so convinced that their imprisonment was genuine that they even joined in chanting "Prisoner 819 is a bad prisoner..." at a prison guard's behest, when #819 was removed from his cell for beginning a hunger strike!

I think that the reason this movie was so chilling was that this is the sort of thing we subject millions of people to for various reasons. According to the Stanford Prison Official site, currently there "...are more Americans in jails and prisons -- both men and women -- than ever before in history." Considering that many of the prisoners in Federal and State custody are there for non-violent drug offenses, I think that the current prison system will do nothing to reform felons. In fact, it probably creates more crime than it suppresses since the unbearable conditions would break down any healthy mind. Imagine what it is like to endure 36 months of solitary confinement? It boggles the mind.

I wish that somebody would put the guys responsible for corporate crime into the same cages that they put the rest of the prisoners in. Then, perhaps somebody would speak out against this cruel and unusual punishment.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't lock up criminals, or individuals that are a danger to society. I just think that by treating inmates like animals, we are allowing the evil within us to take control. By torturing inmates with sleep deprivation, physical abuse, and solitary confinement, we are losing part of what makes us human. If you don't believe me, watch "Das Experiment", and see for yourself. (While you're at it, read Human Rights Watch and their section on Prison life around the world)

The American election is still more than a full year away but the Democratic nomination is keeping my eyes glued to Google News. Every columnist, every pundit, heck, even weather ladies are choosing their favourite potential Democrat to oppose George W. Bush in the 2004 Presidential election. The Daily Show likens them to a "herd" and that isn't far from the truth. Nine different people all seek to embody the spirit of the American Democratic party, or as we Canadians call it, the "lesser of two evils". After all, Clinton was a Democrat & he bombed a lot of foreigners too. He knew how to push the Cruise missile button when it suited him. So, for you Republicans out there, don't think that you're the only ones to be blamed for American imperial policy.

If I had a gun to my head right now and you asked me to choose a Dem to go up against Bush, after emptying my bladder and whimpering a bit, I'd probably go with (Wait, do you want the idealistic choice or the pragmatic choice? This is a tough one) Howard Dean/John Kerry. Dean is more resolute and brave, standing nearly alone against the Warmongers in Congress who supported Bush's attack on Iraq. Kerry seems a little more slick and I think he'd have more of a chance of winning. So do we live in a happy little dream world and go with the Heart (Dean) or do we chug back an espresso and study the Wall Street Journal with our minds (Kerry)? Tough call.

Luckily, Canada doesn't have the trouble of choosing a new leader. He's forcing his way in, nearly done sticking Jean Chretien's head on a pike and hungry for fresh blood. Paul Martin is his name and he only uses his right hand when he waves. Yes, he wants to reconcile with the Americans. After all, he is a multi-millionaire businessman & avid investor (he used to own a steamship company, etc.) so obviously Bush Inc. appeals to him more than the vaguely European socialist policies of the Liberal government in the past. With his hands on the wheel, expect Canada to head straight for the treacherous rocky straits of Republicana. We are going to shift to the right but hopefully the NDP can stay lucid long enough to grab some seats from the Liberals, and maybe the Bloc Quebecois will put aside skipping out of the Canadian Confederation long enough to help veer us to the left.

What has left-wing thinking brought us, besides an enormous tax burden on our entire population? Public health care, a decent education system (with tuition rising, mind you), and a lot of jobs for bureaucrats to count how many geese there are in Winnipeg. Still, I'd rather pay higher taxes and not anger the rest of the world by building bombs & dropping them on those who oppose us. Yesterday, I saw an interview with Mr. McCallum (sp?), Canada's current defense minister. When asked why our government spends so little on our military, he tried his best to sound diplomatic & not anger or offend our British & American allies. What he should have said was Why build up for war when everyone wants peace? Nobody is burning Canadian flags in the streets, vowing to kill the mounties with Rocket Propelled Grenades...Since we don't have an empire, since we don't go around signing deals with dictators, since we don't own everything, we're not a major target.

We have won their hearts and minds by being a good example of a democracy that defends everyone's right to exist. I hope that Paul Martin remembers this when he begins savagely turning the wheel to the right.

Not that I want to get on the bad side of the Catholic Church, but please use protection when you get your freak on. Today, a report released by the UN (you know, that multilateral institution promoting worldwide peace & cooperation that has been getting bombed by radical Iraqi extremists and dismissed as being obsolete by Neo-Con American Congressmen) revealed that approximately 40 million people suffer from HIV infection around the world. In some parts of Africa, four in ten people are living with HIV, which eventually develops into AIDS, unless treated promptly.

Sadly, many people in these nations don't have access to proper health care and most can't afford the price of retroviral drugs, which sometimes represents more than their whole yearly salary alone.

One promising development in the global battle against the spread of HIV is the recent efforts at allowing certain nations the right to produce generic versions of badly-needed medicine during an epidemic. Although this circumvents the "patent" laws of the Western world, at least it offers some hope to the people being stricken by this sinister disease.

Some would argue that by encouraging generic drug manufacturers to prosper, patients won't see the real benefit because there is nothing stopping these companies from jacking up their prices. This is a tough question because you hear two different stories every time it comes up. Who to believe? The NGO's or Medecins sans Frontieres? What about Bristol-Myers Squibb, who just announced $30 Million USD of aid for HIV sufferers from several African nations? (Is it possible that the Western drug companies have a heart? Possibly.) This is something that we should keep an eye on.

Even if you don't live in Sub-saharan Africa, with all the various S.T.D.'s prevalent in Western nations, using a condom is your best option, at least until you and your partner are absolutely certain that you're not at risk (ie. getting tested repeatedly, etc.)

Condoms don't only stop most STD's from spreading--they also prevent unwanted pregnancy. Today, as I was picking up some items at the drug store in my community, I walked by a worried young gentleman speaking hurried Arabic on his cellphone. A sales lady was giving him advice about which pregnancy kit to choose and he was translating this to his girlfriend over the phone. I didn't say a word to him (he needs his privacy at such a stressful moment) but I stopped in the condom aisle on the way out and picked up a box of Trojans. Better safe than sorry!

Every time I read an article penned by a Republican, I get this feeling in the bottom of my gut, the same one some people take antacids for. The pain goes away once I put away the gibberish, but while I'm reading it, I am forced to suffer. Suffer? Is this too strong a word?

Witness the unbelievable statement that David Frum made on National Review Online.

"And I recognize too how essential it is that George Bush be re-elected. If he loses the election, the United States loses the war on terror."

Even for an average Republican, this is going pretty far. I can see that the propaganda campaign and constant references to this "War" that doesn't have an end in sight are actually working for Bush. He's getting the support of his nation in a time of need. Without George W. Bush in power, terrorists will all move in next door and begin systematically bombing everyone in the phonebook, beginning with the A's and working towards the Z's. Does anyone really believe this? ("Is this thing on?")

David Frum, I really do believe that you have all the answers. Please explain how Bush is making the world safer and winning the "War on Terror"? By preemptively removing sovereign Arab governments from power? By keeping one hundred thousand or so troops thousands of miles from home? By curtailing domestic civil liberties via the Patriot Act while supposedly "protecting freedom"?

I wouldn't play up the "War on Terror" angle for too long. War creates casualties & even the most hardened generals would rather use diplomats than ground troops. How can you fight a war against a force that has no shape, no face, no flag or official territory? We've been fighting a war against the common cold for years but we still don't have a cure. Imagine if we began barricading ourselves in our homes and putting cold-sufferers in a Guantanamo Bay prison--people would speak up and protest. Instead, due to the emotional carnage that 9/11 inflicted upon America, the Republicans seem to have some sort of moral imperative to "stay the course" and continue fighting these shadows. Nobody wants to offend the survivors of 9/11 so they are letting George W. Bush make a mockery of the U.S. Constitution, and some of the more deluded followers (ie. David Frum, Andrew Sullivan) are saying that voting against Bush is voting for terror. Even if I were lobotomized, I would have a hard time saying that out loud because it makes no sense. Also, I worry that this type of thinking could become contagious in a land where everyone is afraid.

The American Democratic candidates are all claiming to have a unique solution of how to win the "War on Terror" & how to fix the situation in Iraq. Dennis Kucinich's "90 day-plan", which sounds like some sort of infomercial-- "And our troops will be out in 90 days. U.S. out, U.N. in!"--doesn't really sound very realistic, given that the U.N. is punishing the U.S. for acting unilaterally by refusing to send in peacekeepers. Former General Wesley Clark seems to know a little something about security, having led an international force overseas; heck, even Howard Dean couldn't be that bad. Despite his public speaking gaffes (such as the Confederate flag remark), Dean would probably bring America closer to the rest of the world, just by not being Bush.

One good thing about George W. Bush is his consistent incompetence. He makes the wrong decision so often that it would take a real fuck-up for the Democrats to lose this 2004 election. Then again, anything is possible. By sinking the country into a deficit that may leave them penniless in a couple of years, and by losing millions of jobs since Bush came into office, now the Republicans can claim to be raising job growth & productivity. No wonder. It's like cutting down an old-growth forest and claiming the seedlings you planted as political capital. When your economy is in the toilet, there is no way to go but up.

What makes an activist? A deep and undying love of resisting "the system"? A penchant for whining to everyone within earshot about the ills of the world, or of the foreign policy of the world's only superpower? Recycling his or her cans, bottles, paper, and donating to Greenpeace? What about chanting slogans in front of hundreds of shielded riot police?

For too long, I've been the sort that would respond "All of the above" when asked this question. Words are one thing, but direct action is another. I think that I am guilty of the most sinister crime a self-imagined activist could be accused of--not being active, aside from jabbering. I spend large parts of my life writing down my thoughts and spreading my ideas like some sort of textual plague. My talents are debatable, but I don't think anyone would even bother to do so. I do rail against aggression and oppression and occupation (what is it about that -ion suffix? It always goes with something to fight against!) but I never actually do anything about it!

Does talking about what needs to be done count? On a daily basis, I overwhelm my friends and allies with mildly preachy monologues about my pet subjects (U.S. Defense department behaviour, freedom, corporate enslavement, What is horribly evil about "Disney Inc.", the Israeli-Palestinian conflict & where all the settlers should relocate to, the list goes on...) and this tends to both annoy them and give them the urge to flee at all costs. Why don't I get through to them? And if I can't communicate verbally, what sort of writer can I suppose to be?

I know that New Years is still a puff of smoke on the horizon but I am going to make my resolution a bit early. I want this next year to be one of activity--I want to volunteer, be a part of true activism (ie. beyond rallies & ranting) and doing something positive for the world instead of just talking the talk. I suppose I'll keep writing, too, because it keeps my hands warm through these frigid Montreal winters. I'll do my best to limit my blathering to loved ones, and maybe I'll cut it out completely in 2005.

Hey, not to leap topics at the toss of a cap, but the Montreal transit strike that I've been mentioning lately ended on Sunday! Islanders will be eternally grateful to the navy blue team of tricksters (S.T.M. Employees) who exercised their freedom to protest and gauged the Quebec taxpayer for a salary increase of 7.8 percent over the next 4 years.(Check Google News for details). After reading that their average salary is about $47,000 per year, I lusted for a career opportunity at the S.T.M. They enjoy many fringe benefits in addition to such a generous salary, at least when compared to what employees in the private sector (ie. sales, retail, warehouse, etc.). Clerks that sit in the booths at the gates of metros citywide are reading books, right now, while getting paid handsomely to refuse to offer directions, feigning ignorance of the local streets and alleys.

Just seeing such antics makes me pity the poor McDonald's employees that slave away robotically for their stipend of $7.30 an hour (Canadian!). Having already suffered the pain of seeing 80 hours of work become diluted into a measly 23 twenty-dollar bills ($460), I know how it feels to be one of the "working poor". How can we beat this cycle of inhumanity?

Could unions be the answer for all retail employees? How can we improve legislation to protect the creation and organization of unions? Most attempts at starting unions result in closure of the establishment in question and obvious resistance from the corporate HQ. If every worker suddenly became part of a union, would this catapult our nation into a recession, with local retail outlets floundering? This should be addressed if we are to give everyone access to a reasonable standard of living. Through strong-arm tactics like the one the S.T.M. employed to such great benefit, let the Wendy's employees become a force to be reckoned with. Let that McJob pay twice as much and make it a viable career option instead of a transitional job to pay the bills.

Have you ever tried to get from one end of the Montreal Island to the other on foot? It could take hours, even days if you are among the minority of islanders without a vehicle. For these people, the citys mass transit system is the only viable option. Sadly, Montreal is currently in the grips of a massive transit strike.

Sure, there are more troubling things going on around the world. Drive-by donkey-cart rocket attacks in Iraq; Turkey still sorting through the rubble from Thursday's terrorist bombings; Michael Jackson, once America's Idol, now accused of abusing even more young boys. Still, for the citizens of Montreal, this transit strike is hitting them where it hurts.

It began Sunday, November 16th, and since then, buses and metro (subway) service has only been running during rush hour. Service won't even exist over the weekend! This is going to put a lot of pressure on the city to make a deal but these gun-to-your-head tactics aren't going to appeal to the thousands of Montrealers left stranded without a bus or metro & in risk of losing their jobs.

I hope that everything gets sorted out as soon as possible because my sister is one of the hassled-many, and it must be difficult for her to walk all the way downtown from St-Henri Metro! Good luck, sis, and let's hope the STM union is satisfied by the raise the city of Montreal offers them. (The employees on strike already receive an average annual salary of $47,000! This is no small chunk of change. They're requesting an increase of 8.7 percent over the next four years! Whatever. Let's get these buses back on the road!)

Finally, a billionaire who's standing for what he believes in! George Soros, longtime financier of pro-democracy movements worldwide, has written a scathing essay about where Bush is taking the U.S. (to a dangerous place) and what this will mean in the future. Rather than dilute the force of his words, I will let George illuminate us all with his logical argument.

"The war on terrorism as pursued by the Bush Administration cannot be won. On the contrary, it may bring about a permanent state of war. Terrorists will never disappear. They will continue to provide a pretext for the pursuit of American supremacy. That pursuit, in turn, will continue to generate resistance. Further, by turning the hunt for terrorists into a war, we are bound to create innocent victims. The more innocent victims there are, the greater the resentment and the better the chances that some victims will turn into perpetrators."

He also goes on to say that the United States became the great nation it is now by being amicable, open, and willing to compromise, not by forcing its values upon the rest of the globe at gunpoint. This is where Bush and his Neoconservative Clan have gone astray.

Instead of just criticizing American foreign policy, he even offers a viable solution of how to lessen the spread of terrorism worldwide; to "...lead a cooperative effort to improve the world by engaging in preventive actions of a constructive character." He also goes on to propose "...replacing the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive military action with preventive action of a constructive and affirmative nature. Increased foreign aid or better and fairer trade rules, for example, would not violate the sovereignty of the recipients. Military action should remain a last resort."

In my opinion, that is some sound judgement from a self-made billionaire with a soul. It goes to show that anyone has the potential to make the right decision. Let us hope that the American public makes the right decision in 2004 (by voting for a viable candidate to replace Bush!).

The National Post, a widely-distributed Canadian newspaper that teeters towards the Right in terms of editorial policy, has proven its fallibility yet again. I've never heard such mythical bullshit being passed as news like this in my life, unless you count the tripe they feed you in State-Run newspapers (Ie. China, North Korea, etc.)

For example,

"The world's real environmental problems are not caused by corporations. They are local -- and they are caused by poverty. The solution to these local environmental problems is prosperity and empowerment of the poor. Facilitating and freeing up trade are crucial to achieving those objectives." said Kendra Okonski, director of IPN's Sustainable Development Project."

(and)

"Economic growth is key to addressing environmental concerns."

So I suppose instead of putting laws in place that protect the environment, or that demand that corporations stand accountable for polluting the globe, we should simply demolish the shantytowns! They are the ones causing the acid rain and the toxins in our drinking water, right? The National Post would have you believe that the disenfranchised of the world are to blame for everything, despite all evidence to the contrary.

That is why I try to read all sorts of different opinions, to counteract the bias that comes from taking all your water from the same well. Personally, I swear by Google News, since it allows me to find the most important stories from multiple sources, including the opinions of other nations (India, China, Russia, Brazil, etc.). Give it a whirl sometime.

The Source & Ray Benzino have caused a stir by pulling a skeleton out of Eminem's closet, revealing that he is apparently a racist. Add this to his already well-known misogynic and homophobic attitudes and what you have is a sad individual. I can't defend Eminem and if he really is a racist, his fans will continue to abandon him and go pick up Jay-Z's "The Black Album" (which I can say is truly a masterpiece, as far as rap goes. I haven't heard anything that sounded this good since Nas dropped "Illmatic").

The only problem is that Ray Benzino is closer to Eminem than he realizes. Perhaps not in terms of unit sales--Eminem is a multi-platinum artist while Benzino has reportedly been forced to use his connections at the Source Magazine to even get his own albums released--but they are from the same club when it comes to hating gays and women.

Benzino-"Die Another Day"
"Tell Haley it ain't safe no more (nah)

Daddy better watch yo' back at the candystore

We Fucked up, resort to plan B

Fuck around she and up like Jon Benet Ramsey (that's right)

Matter of fact you better check the DNA (what)

She probably ain't yours, and where's your wife Kim anyway

She's on her knees somewhere suckin' 50 Cent

I know you wishin' you were there cause you on his dick

You dress in drag, you huggin' up on Elton John

You closet fag, I'm a king you a little punk

You the rap david doer the rap bibler
"

When you consider that Benzino is referring to kidnapping Eminem's daughter, who's not yet out of middle school, you have to stop and wonder if this guy is really smoking the rocks he brags about selling in his songs. Eminem may be the class clown of hip hop, or even an obnoxious Elvis that is truly stealing an urban art form from the "streets", but that doesn't give Ray Benzino the right to single out Eminem for doing the same thing he does; stir up hatred towards people who are different, and try to make money by spitting vile words over a bass drum and a snare.

That's why we should just focus on the positive--hip hop is gaining momentum worldwide. I can count many good rappers or hip hop collectives that are making waves (shortlist? dead prez, Outkast, Rascalz, Buck 65, Jay-Z {gotta love "the black album"!}, Sixtoo, Obie Trice(?), Nas, Talib Kweli, Nappy Roots, even 50 Cent drops the occasional gem and the list goes on) so why should we fixate on a beef between two women-hating, gay-taunting brutes with some sort of love-hate relationship? I say love-hate because Benzino's Source magazine gave Eminem one of his first big breaks by choosing him as an "Unsigned Hype" choice early in his career. Let's just pop in "99 Problems" in the stereo, turn the bass way up, and take a nice haul off the chronic. There, isn't that better? (Damn right!)

We may be on the verge of some sort of major war in Asia. Taiwan has been considering permanent independence from mainland China since 1949, when Mao Zedong and his followers launched the "cultural revolution" and 2 million nationalists escaped to the Taiwan peninsula. Today, Taiwanese people enjoy some democratic freedoms and human rights, while China continues to suffer from totalitarian rule. Chinese citizens may have economic freedoms but they remain socially tied to a system that denies them basic liberties.

I may spend a significant amount of time criticizing American foreign policy in this blog, but I must concede that China also frightens me because they are a superpower without the American constitution, a potential global bully without a conscience. At least America has people capable of changing their government if it goes too far into extremism (in 2004, when Bush is thrown out of office and onto the Whitehouse lawn, democrats everywhere will dance in the streets). China doesn't have this luxury. Their leadership only cares about its own interests.

This brings us to the Taiwan issue. Here is a quote from Xinhuanet.com, the official website of the state-sponsored "Xinhua News Agency" (their mission statement includes the words "Whenever you need news, come to Xinhuanet.com first; Whatever information you search, surf Xinhuanet.com first." Sounds inviting, huh?) ***Warning...Irony Alert!!!***

"Xu said that Taiwan's move for the referendum deprives the democratic rights of 1.3 billion compatriots on the mainland and it is also dividing Taiwan itself, which "disregards human rights and tramples democracy ".

They also warn Taiwan of "crossing a red line". Other articles have even suggested that China would go to war to take back the Taiwanese territory. America has been selling weapons to Taiwan for years (20.7 Billion USD in arms sales from 1994 to 2001) and everyone agrees that it would be virtually impossible for Taiwan to successfully defend itself from the mighty Chinese military. If Taiwan votes to become independent from China forever, there will surely be a war in the Asian region.

Will the U.S. or other nations take sides in this conflict? Doing so would mean a world war because China is powerful enough to take on several nations. Taiwan would be batted aside like a gnat and Russia has signed a mutual protection pact with China, so they would not interfere, but other nations in that area (India, Japan, etc.) would probably not sit idly by. War is a scary thought and I hope that Chinese leaders temper their plans with logic. If America sides with Taiwan versus the Chinese juggernaut, this would probably be the end of the Chinese communist régime.

If you don't think that the U.S. would do such a thing, consider this quote from Richard Lawless, the U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Asian and Pacific Affairs.

"(Bush) has reaffirmed his committment to the Taiwan Relations Act and has stated that "America will do whatever it takes to help Taiwan defend itself."

This could mean war. I can already see the wagons circling.

I just sent in a letter to the editor of the Montreal Gazette. Here it is, in response to an op-ed piece written by H. Sterling Burnett, a senior fellow specializing in energy and the environment at the U.S. National Centre for Policy Analysis.

How exactly should we prepare for the "warmer world" that Mr. Burnett envisions? Perhaps we can all buy rubber dinghys or pontoon boats so that we can stay afloat when climate change melts the polar ice caps and floods our coastal cities.

I am not surprised by Mr. Burnett's opinion on climate change since the views of the Bush administration on this subject are well known. According to BBC News, an EPA report on the state of the environment was censored by the White House because it warned of global warming. Instead of accepting the reality that our climate is changing, the White House prefers to embrace pseudoscience and studies done by American Petroleum Institute.

Mr. Burnett says that since the Kyoto Protocol is "dead", we should just move on and try to adapt to the consequences. That is like saying that a burning house should be left to the flames just because the living room has caught fire. I suppose Mr. Burnett would just recommend shopping for a new house.

I'm not certain that the Gazette will publish it, but I've crossed every finger on both hands and I'll keep you posted! (Ha ha ha, assuming that anybody is reading these words!!! If not, I suppose this is much like the SETI program, only reversed--instead of listening to an empty universe, I'm some poor young fuck who's shouting to an empty auditorium, trying to inspire a bunch of unoccupied seats.)